"A quote from the post: 'Here at Clark HQ, we're using a lot of open source technology. When our IT team was setting up computers for everyone, a good majority of them outfitted with OpenOffice and Mozilla. We're also using Thunderbird as our main mail client and Squirrelmail for the travel team. Those who refuse to give up their copies of Outlook are required to surrender their laptops for examination before being allowed to plug them into the office network.' Sounds like there is a pretty good possibility that this could be the first presidential candidate to use Mozilla!"

The weblog entry was made by Cameron Barret (of CamWorld fame), who is the Blog Strategy Guy for the Clark campaign. Note that the post never explicitly states that Clark uses Mozilla.

"If you base your voting descision on these criteria, you are making a mockery of the democratic process."

Yep. Sure wouldn't want to factor in the technological sophistication of the team of people with which a candidate surrounds himself. There's certainly no point in considering whether or not a candidate is forward thinking when it comes to the tools and process of campaigning. Don't bother yourself with the pesky little issues like how smart the guy is or how capable his team is. Why worry your pretty little mind about details like that when you can focus on his hair, her flashy smile, the color of his suit, etc.

Seriously, though, he's right. He's not talking about a flashy smile or a colorful suit, he's talking about focusing on the real issues. And as important as we'd like to think we computer geeks are, we're not.

I guess the choices of our candidates really have no consequence, then? So whatever technology that he chooses to adopt is ok? Carpet bombing, then?

Of course that's absurd. But it's absurd to say that this choice is irrelevant. It's relevant to a specific portion of the population, sure, but more than that it's relevant to the ability of the campaign to do its job well. And in the light of Microsoft's horrific security flaws, doesn't making reasoned choices about technology an indication of a campaign's ability to make fundamental assessments of the world?

Seriously. Would you feel better if a candidate was using technologies that you know are rife with security flaws? Or would it simply not matter to you at all?

"And in the light of Microsoft's horrific security flaws, doesn't making reasoned choices about technology an indication of a campaign's ability to make fundamental assessments of the world?"

I'm not sure it does, does it? And, surely more importantly, are the campaign staff's choices of technology an indication of the candidate's future choices?

Sure it's nice that Mozilla and Open Source got a mention on the campaign blog, but to suggest that you can judge anything much about the candidate from that seems a bit of a stretch. And Asa's ad-hominem flames don't add much to the argument...

So you can't determine anything about a candidate's fitness to run based upon the decisions of the people whom he chooses to be his support?

Then we're not supposed to be able to gauge Bush's fitness based upon the behavior of Ashcroft and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz?

It's all part of the whole package. When you get a glimpse into the workings of a campaign like this, I think it's wrong to say that because it's not the candidate's decision and it's not a political platform that it is inconsequential. How much have we learned about Kerry from the routine shakeups of his campaign staff?

Would you refuse to make something out of it if you found that a company that you had a large stake in was utilizing shoddy software that compromised security?

Sure, there are more important ways of evaluating a candidate. But that doesn't rob this less consequential evaluation of merit.

But (AIUI - I'm not American) we're not talking about the likes of Ashcroft, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz here. Sure, it's a part of a package, but it seems like a rather small part. As you say, there are more important ways of evaluating a candidate.

On the subject of security - Mozilla doesn't have a perfect record, and it's something of a concern that Mozilla doesn't seem to be advising users of security problems any more...

It's not just a browser they're using it's a lot of other open source applications, if they're proven to run better than the commercial countrerparts this could help spread wider adoption and reduce the stranglehold held by Microsoft.

It's not the main issue that people should consider when selecting politicians, however, it's one of a small range of relatively minor issues that would sway a vote in favour of this candidate should other issues be equal.

I'd certainly rather see Bush removed from power - it's sickening some of the things he'll do to get re-elected: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1083116,00.html

"Why worry your pretty little mind about details like that when you can focus on his hair, her flashy smile, the color of his suit, etc."

That "etc." should *include* the subject of Clark HQ's blog entry. This is like "Boxers or briefs?" or "PCs or Macs?" It's trivial, meaningless, inconsequential stuff. I think it's foolish to *assume* that the decision to use open source software was 1) based on any ideological principle(s) of the Open Source/Free Software/anti-IP, electronic freedom, etc. movement (which could be good *or* bad, IMHO, depending on Clark's specific objectives and motivations) or 2) a decision personally initiated or strongly pushed by candidate Wesley Clark himself.

This blog/virtual press release is such transparent pandering. They all but admit that the announcement of their policy is in response to the story on Linux Journal (posted on Slashdot http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/11/06/1651225) which was about what server platforms were being used by presidential candidates. Some Slashdotters made disparaging remarks about President Bush for using a Windows server, and apparently, alert Clark campaign strategists took notice. To regard a campaign organization's choice of web servers or any other software as a significant political issue is ridiculous, but it seems to have real sway with some geeks.

Blogs that are run by political campaigns are part of the campaigns themselves. They are tools of pure propaganda. That's not to say that their information is necessarily false; just that they're desperately trying to win your favor.

Notice exactly what the blog entry says and what it does *not* say: a majority of the computers were "OUTFITTED" with OpenOffice and Mozilla. The blog says nothing about *removing* or not also installing Microsoft Office on the computers or about making Mozilla the default browser. Moz and OOo are free, so it's no big deal for IT to deploy them across the network and announce to the world: "We've got Open Source appz throughout Clark HQ! We are über 1EE7 633X5!" If IE and Office icons are still where they've always been, the users may never actually *use* the new apps! Most people don't even know what all is on their computers.

I think all aspects surrounding a candidate are important in creating an opinion regarding where we will place our votes. I think ASA is right in saying that the technologies adopted by a candidate's IT team are much more important than marketing aspects like hair style and white degree of the smile.

A candidate's IT team that shows an open mind in adopting open and free software alternatives proves that once in power, this person's IT team will conduct their decisions regarding IT techs also with an open mind which will benefit everyone.

Of course there are many other aspects to take in count but this is one of them.

I think all aspects surrounding a candidate are important in creating an opinion regarding where we will place our votes. I think ASA is right in saying that the technologies adopted by a candidate's IT team are much more important than marketing aspects like hair style and white degree of the smile.

A candidate's IT team that shows an open mind in adopting open and free software alternatives proves that once in power, this person's IT team will conduct their decisions regarding IT techs also with an open mind which will benefit everyone.

Of course there are many other aspects to take in count but this is one of them.

Why do some people write Asa in all uppercase, it's someones name in this context. In Norway I guess that ASA means Ltd or Inc or something e.g. 'Opera Software ASA', but when do people write names in all uppercase?

Obviously no one is going to vote for a single candidate just because their campaign uses Mozilla or not. That is rediciulous. Of course there are many real world issues that are more important.

But when you think about it, a candidate's technological beliefs can be quite interest to know, especially if maybe your not into politics or can make a decision between candidates. By his campaign admitting that they use Mozilla, Linux, etc...that means they are for choice in the marketplace, they are for using products that are secure, and so on. Who knows...maybe he would restart the antitrust stuff with Microsoft? Make sure all government web sites work well with Mozilla and other standards-compliant web browsers? Consider even switching at least some government servers to linux? Who knows!

I have been following this campaign and has been my experience btw that Clark's IT team is very trustworthy. Even did a little work with them on a volunteer basis. If they say this is what they do and what their policy is, then it is 100% true. I wouldn't of posted it otherwise.

The main reason why I posted this article? Because I thought it was pretty amazing that the campaign of a presidental candidate (maybe even the candidate himself) uses Mozilla and other open-source products as their first choice before Microsoft products. Would it make hundreds of Mozilla-fans possibily vote for him? Probably not, but it is always good to keep something like this in the back of your mind when you go vote if you are still undecided. Maybe even someone who doesn't vote might check him out because of this.

Use your brain when you make comments. Obviously you can't decide who to vote for on one view a candidate has.

this is the kind of ridiculous messianism that really gets under my skin.

For those of you who just crawled out from under a pickle barrel, among foreign policy, the Federal budget, the future of Social Security and Medicare, etc., there is a very full slate of issues for the next President of the U.S. to deal with. The idea that the President is going to waste time, energy, and possibly political capital micro-managing government information technology is ludicrous in the extreme.

Wake up, people! None of the Presidential candidates are going to descend to shower OSS with manna and hurl lightning bolts at Microsoft. The EU is not going to make Bill Gates kneel barefoot in the snow at Canossa. AOL did not ever adapt a Gecko-based client and lift our marketshare into double digits. We are fighting an unfair battle against heavy odds—and no one is going to come suddenly make it fair. If we're going to gain marketshare and keep the Web open, it will be because we worked hard, used our technical advantages, and produced an undeniably superior product, not because we sat around and fantasized about how the government or some big company might step in and help us.

I Have actually worked on political campaigns dating all the way back to 1968. I find it amusing that people think the software the staff uses shows anything about the canidate. The decesion process typically works like this. The Canidate selects a Campaign Manager. The Campaign manager designates people to set up an office or website. They are told to keep costs down so that the funds can be used for other purposes. The people setting up the office, the website, whatever, get bids looking for the lowest price, or donated services/products if possible. The people who submit the winning bid/donation are the ones who actually decide on what software will be used in the office and for the website. This crap dosen't say anything about any of the canidates ideas on opensource software, something that most of them likely don't realize exists. It just tells us what a doner or a winning bidder selected. This is just political spin applied to a choice that someone other than the canidate made.

Seriously, they must use something to manage their time. From what I can tell, Mozilla doesn't do a shared calendar with remote free/busy lookups. Whenever you consider Outlook it always comes down to these features, 'cos the mail client is truly awful.

Someone (tooo lazy to find out who) made the important point that there's no guarantee of how many people on Clark's campaign actually use the open-source tool. Here where I work, Netscape 7.0 is installed on virtually all the computers, but I've never seen anyone using it (not even myself :) ). Having said that, if you really care about technology's role in campaigns, there's no one other than Howard Dean who's exploited the Internet so well. So far much of his campaign's been based on using this medium to connect his supporters, and why he's no longer just a spectacle.

Howard Dean's exploitation of the Internet is not, in itself, a good thing - it was more than his supporters that he was sending email to. The campaign claimed that the contractor had said they had an "opt-in only" list of people and they'd trusted them - that's either disingenuous or very naive. Either way, they ended up spamming a large number of people. http://www.msnbc.com/news/954100.asp?0cv=CB20&cp1=1

Not surprising that someone would overstep the bounds, but in this case it's just that the contractors lied about their lists. It doesn't have any bearing on Dean's use of the Internet in his campaign, which, again, is the only reason for his success so far.

It honestly never ceases to amaze me how easily people will get worked up over a small amount of text. Granted, words are how we communicate and express what goes on within our heads, and this is a representation of who we are (in some aspects) - but the manner in which such hostilities emerge shows where the origins of social control arise. Why do you think the Commander and Thief was able to gain access to the White House in the first place? Fear and manipulation.

Whether it is Bush Jr. or his people who do the actual work, we're not facing an easy opponent for the political future of this nation. It won't be something as simple as what software someone is running that gets most of the nation to vote for or against the incumbent. I dislike the current resident of the Presidential Mansion as much as any other intelligent human being should - but these flame wars on venues such as this only show how much division those who oppose the current Appointed President face. There are no clearly strong opposing candidates and everyone is bickering over small pieces.

We need to look beyond small pieces and realize that there is another election coming - and if we don't stand up behind someone with more integrity and better policey in a form of solidarity - Bush has this one in the bag. All he has to do is keep people divided through use of the media, and human nature will do the rest of the work.

There's a problem. Most of the areas where I disagree with the Shrub, I disagree with his Dem Rivals even more. I Didn't vote for either of the idiots that the major partys nominated in 2000, opting for the Libertarian. The Shrub had a massive lead in my state so I didn't have to worry about tipping the states electorial vote to anyone. If I had been forced to pick one of the majors in a close race, then the Gorebot was the "Evil of the two lessers", and I would have punched a chad out by the shrub's name. The upcomming election I'll be voting diferently. I'll be voting for the Shrub!! Why? The Libertarians aren't going to win, so I'm going for amusement. I Find the Bush Bashers who spam every forum with thier hatred to be endlessly amusing. Looking at the Dem field they will again have the Evil of the two lessers, so I'll take the less evil lesser and the amusement for another 4 years. Wonder if we can get Jeb in 2008 to continue the fun?

Whatever. Pretty telling how a Libertarian can look away while Bushies get the power to indefinitely detain US citizens and deny them a lawyer or outside contact, or intercept client-lawyer communication. Gore's recent speech on civil liberties should be required reading, especially for people like you.

Gore's recent speech should be required reading for ANYONE studying spin and FUD.

On the other hand, most Americans should spend their time actually reading the legislation that they're so concerned about. They'll discover that it's actually not bad at all, only codifying, clarifying, and summarizing the means of operation that investigators already have.

And then of course there's the matter of your phrase "Bushies get the power", which properly express the fact that whatever powers you are referring to were granted to him. In other words, this is the fault of Congress and the other branches.

This is all offtopic, but in the end I'd much rather have an executive branch taking full advantage of the laws handed to it by congress than one passing orders that further regulate me in my daily life.

I hope you're aware that most of the Patriot Act is recycled provisions from President Clinton's antiterror act in 1996. (And this isn't just some sort of Republican candard: look at http://www.counterpunch.org/presspatriot.html and http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0331/mondo3.php , neither of which were organs of the VWRC when last I checked.) Attorneys General don't ask for increased policing powers because they are of the party that lights cigars with the Bill of Rights; they do so because they will always feel they could be getting more information about what criminals are doing, they see themselves as "the good guys", and they feel like they'd use it responsibly. As long as there is a significant threat of a terrorist attack on the U.S., the political calculus of either party is going to be weighted towards being thought hard on defense and weak on civil liberties. (Although a rollback of some part of the Act of no actual use to the DOJ, with great ceremony and fanfare, is certainly possible.) Lord Acton figured this out long ago: "The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern. Every class is unfit to govern."

And Dobbins is right: this is *very* entertaining, when viewed from a perspective of cynical detachment. I particularly like the parallels with the Clinton years: intense personal anger against incumbent, nutty conspiracy theories, claims incumbent is depriving us of civil liberties as a precursor to rounding up dissidents, premature declaration of "mission accomplished" in Iraq (The Clinton-era declaration followed Operation Desert Fox; see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bmd-list/message/104 including special bonus link to Scott Ritter's explanation of how Saddam Hussein will use this to claim innocence), mysterious billionaire underwriting the opposition (Scaife/Soros), incumbent perceived by opponents as "hard-line" but actually fairly close to center.

Whatever. You people are more interested in blaming someone (both parties, one party, one person, WHATEVER) than seeing that extreme power's been given to the White House. Yeah, laugh all you want, till all the dissidents have been locked up.

BOTH major partys fell all over themselves to hand that power to the President, so it has no bearing on deciding on the evil of the two lessers is. The vote in the House was 356 to 66. In the Senate it was 98 to 1. NEITHER the Dems nor the GOP are any great friends of indiviual rights and freedoms, and the Dems are the worse of the two. The Dems whinning when they are out of power is more amusing than the GOP's however. All this Evil Bush crap is a lot funnier than the whinning about a blow job was. That was downright boring! Since BOTH major partys are jerks on the subject of indiviual freedom, and since the Dems are the bigger jerks AND more amusing when they are out of power, the Shrub gets my vote.

"I dislike the current resident of the Presidential Mansion as much as any other intelligent human being should"

Just a comment that's been on my mind for a while: it annoys me when people on the right or left speak like their position is the obvious truth, and the only reason others disagree is because they are stupid, evil, blinded by patriotism, anti-American, etc. Sure people have the right to say whatever they want, but this isn't constructive.

There are lots of bright people in all parties. Also, for almost any course of action the government takes, there will be plenty of both good and bad effects. You can make very cogent arguments both for and against any policy or politician you want to. The more you really think about politics, the more complicated it becomes; there are some deep philosophical, ethical, sociological, and economic issues involved. It reminds me of that story of Socrates, who ended up being the wisest of all because he realized he didn't know anything.

"It honestly never ceases to amaze me how easily people will get worked up over a small amount of text"

Agreed. I've had my fill of heated arguments over politics. Democracy takes more than interest and voting to work. If we keep on with the partisan bickering instead of calmly and objectively searching for truth, we'll never figure out what's best for our country(ies).

I personally will vote for whomever is the democrat's nominee in November. By the time the primaries roll around in my state, the nominee has virtually already been picked and the loser has resigned. I wouldn't vote for George Bush if he made a national holiday for Mozilla and open source software.

People are taking this the wrong way. This is an advertisement for Mozilla, not for Clark. Any postivie media attention we can get is good. This is good so that Clark supporters may try Mozilla, not because Mozilla users will support Clark. We have something that provides media coverage to non-tech people (albeit mostly liberals), and people are complaining? How often does this happen? How is it not a good thing? chrisgeleven's original article does not suggest in any way that people should support Clark, neither do any of the replies. I now have a much better chance of converting my friend, a big Clark supporter, to Mozilla. Before he was just too stubborn to switch, but now if he sees this I think I will be able get him to switch. Is this really a bad thing?

I agree completely with willll. Its always good to see any publicity to any open source product. While I don't necessarily agree with Clark's politics, I'm very excited that he and his team are willing to learn the substandard of M$.

We all know how great Mozilla, OpenOffice.org and the like are, but if the popularity of open source does not grow, we will eventually reach a limit in what we can do on our own. I am looking forward to seeing linux and open source distributed to more than just cost-cutting companies and foreign governements.